The former president's budget cuts weakened the U.S. military, he contends.

By JONATHAN ROOS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

November 9, 2007

Ames, Ia. -Republican Rudy Giuliani, campaigning in Iowa the same day that Bill Clinton was in the Hawkeye State, charged Thursday that the former president had weakened the American military and intelligence services through spending cuts during his administration.

"Our military is too small to deal with the Islamic terrorism threats, but it really is too small to deter would-be aggressors to even think of challenging us. And that's due to Bill Clinton," Giuliani told students and others in the audience of about 350 at Iowa State University's Memorial Union.

"Bill Clinton cut our military and our intelligence budget by such a huge amount that we've never made up the difference," said the former New York mayor, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Giuliani said in response to a question about relations with China that the United States needs a bigger military, including at least 10 more combat brigades and a 300-ship Navy.

"If we do that, it will send a very strong signal to China and then Russia ... that it doesn't make sense to challenge us," he said.​

What Guiliani means is when Bush took over he didn't have the massive army to immediately stage invasions and imperialism all over the world, so I guess that's a bad thing.

What Guiliani wants is the ridiculous firepower to start WWIII and increase our military bases from 850+ to 1000+ all over the world.

I believe in strong self defense, but his words are just crazy talk. Just look up our military spending, we outspend everyone in the entire world combined, it's a joke to say that we're not armed enough.

What Guiliani means is when Bush took over he didn't have the massive army to immediately stage invasions and imperialism all over the world, so I guess that's a bad thing.

What Guiliani wants is the ridiculous firepower to start WWIII and increase our military bases from 850+ to 1000+ all over the world.

I believe in strong self defense, but his words are just crazy talk. Just look up our military spending, we outspend everyone in the entire world combined, it's a joke to say that we're not armed enough.

Click to expand...

I guess it just depends what you want the world to look like. You are right that we are plenty armed enough to defend ourselves. For me ? That's good enough because I don't give a damn about others Many do, however. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, I was good with that. If Iran wants Iraq now and moves into, say, Turkey afterwards . . . whatever. However a lot of people don't want that so here we are. It's absolutely fine to say we overspend but you have to also then be OK with turning a blind eye when some countries are destroyed by others.

I guess it just depends what you want the world to look like. You are right that we are plenty armed enough to defend ourselves. For me ? That's good enough because I don't give a damn about others Many do, however. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, I was good with that. If Iran wants Iraq now and moves into, say, Turkey afterwards . . . whatever. However a lot of people don't want that so here we are. It's absolutely fine to say we overspend but you have to also then be OK with turning a blind eye when some countries are destroyed by others.

Click to expand...

That kind of argument doesn't fly, because we don't use force in Myanmar to save the monks, or in Pakistan where the real danger is. In those scenarios you list involving Iran or even Iraq-Kuwait, events where we are in the moral right will involve a coalition of countries that also want to do the right thing. The only need for an overwhelming amount of power is when you want to go it alone for something that is questionable and oftentimes flat out immoral.

I don't know about you, but I DO NOT want to create an American global empire where we try to control the world; over-stretching our means will result in our downfall just like how the Romans fell.

I don't know about you, but I DO NOT want to create an American global empire where we try to control the world; over-stretching our means will result in our downfall just like how the Romans fell.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, like I said I'm good with just defending ourselves. I just want to make sure people who say we over spend understand and agree to the consequences of only defending direct attack on us.

These argument and political talking points are all so stupid, why do we keep on building nuclear submarines... to keep the contractors and constituents happy where they are built? Why does each branch of the gov't spend billions on R & D for essentially the same item?? Why do we subsidize golf courses and lessons for military dependents? Why do we provide reduced rate kennel care for military families?? Why do we pay Blackwater Billions?? On and on.

To blame Bush I, Clinton or Bush II belies the core of the problem it is about the military industrial complex that permeates the contractors and products of the pentagon. If they wanted to do so, they could eliminate about 40% of the budget that is spent on pork and focus on providing a well paid, military that could defend us and respond to selective world wide needs.. they choose not to.

Why do we subsidize golf courses and lessons for military dependents? Why do we provide reduced rate kennel care for military families?? Why do we pay Blackwater Billions?? On and on.

Click to expand...

And why do we pay for Viagra for 70 year olds ? Not trying to change the subject but while it's "on and on" in the military, the wasteful spending is "on and on" out of the military too. It's not a military or DoD problem, it's a government wide problem.

These argument and political talking points are all so stupid, why do we keep on building nuclear submarines... to keep the contractors and constituents happy where they are built? Why does each branch of the gov't spend billions on R & D for essentially the same item?? Why do we subsidize golf courses and lessons for military dependents? Why do we provide reduced rate kennel care for military families?? Why do we pay Blackwater Billions?? On and on.

To blame Bush I, Clinton or Bush II belies the core of the problem it is about the military industrial complex that permeates the contractors and products of the pentagon. If they wanted to do so, they could eliminate about 40% of the budget that is spent on pork and focus on providing a well paid, military that could defend us and respond to selective world wide needs.. they choose not to.

And why do we pay for Viagra for 70 year olds ? Not trying to change the subject but while it's "on and on" in the military, the wasteful spending is "on and on" out of the military too. It's not a military or DoD problem, it's a government wide problem.

But then again, this thread is about the character of Little Rudi. This guy is a coward who lives a phony life and constructs weak arguments for soundbites. He has managed to create an image of being the nation's protector based on the fact that he was the Mayor of NYC when the WTC was attacked. He consistently hoards the credit for every good thing that happenned in NYC during his term, with special emphasis on the post 9-11 period - as if he was running command & control himself just because he was present. The fact that he is a contender really makes me embarrassed for and wonder about the sanity of those who believe in this pile of garbage posing as a patriot. It's unbelievable to me how he has been able to use the media to create his illusion.

The former president's budget cuts weakened the U.S. military, he contends.

By JONATHAN ROOS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

November 9, 2007

Ames, Ia. -Republican Rudy Giuliani, campaigning in Iowa the same day that Bill Clinton was in the Hawkeye State, charged Thursday that the former president had weakened the American military and intelligence services through spending cuts during his administration.

"Our military is too small to deal with the Islamic terrorism threats, but it really is too small to deter would-be aggressors to even think of challenging us. And that's due to Bill Clinton," Giuliani told students and others in the audience of about 350 at Iowa State University's Memorial Union.

"Bill Clinton cut our military and our intelligence budget by such a huge amount that we've never made up the difference," said the former New York mayor, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Giuliani said in response to a question about relations with China that the United States needs a bigger military, including at least 10 more combat brigades and a 300-ship Navy.

"If we do that, it will send a very strong signal to China and then Russia ... that it doesn't make sense to challenge us," he said.​

Click to expand...

Clinton hates the military, he admitted it, he used the word "despised" and the military hates the Clintons, the military hates the Clintons because the military knows the Clintons hate them.

Can you just picture Billy Blue Dress flying a fighter plane :bricks:

Clinton dodged the draft and ran off to Europe and hid with all the girls.

Clinton hates the military, he admitted it, he used the word "despised" and the military hates the Clintons, the military hates the Clintons because the military knows the Clintons hate them.

Can you just picture Billy Blue Dress flying a fighter plane :bricks:

Clinton dodged the draft and ran off to Europe and hid with all the girls.

Click to expand...

And no one has ever come forth saying they saw Georgie do anything during his phantom stint with the national guard... :bricks: :bricks: for some reason this cannot be proven, only Harriet Myers knows for sure.

And why do we pay for Viagra for 70 year olds ? Not trying to change the subject but while it's "on and on" in the military, the wasteful spending is "on and on" out of the military too. It's not a military or DoD problem, it's a government wide problem.

Well, like I said, I have no problem with cutting defense to just defend ourselves directly - but are you OK with rogue countries attacking other countries and killing all their people ? If so then you are being consistent.

Well, like I said, I have no problem with cutting defense to just defend ourselves directly - but are you OK with rogue countries attacking other countries and killing all their people ? If so then you are being consistent.

Click to expand...

We lost far fewer lives under Clinton than under Bush. The military is not the only way to defend our country, but unfortunately it was the only way that Bush understood.

We lost far fewer lives under Clinton than under Bush. The military is not the only way to defend our country, but unfortunately it was the only way that Bush understood.

Click to expand...

That's a strange thing to say given that 9/11 happened under Bush but was planned under Clinton. 9/11 didn't happen because OBL didn't like Bush's policies and his alone. Just admit that you don't give a crap about non Americans (as I admit) and I'm good with you being consistent. Otherwise I guess we need to be able to defend all those foreigners you care so much about.

Well, like I said, I have no problem with cutting defense to just defend ourselves directly - but are you OK with rogue countries attacking other countries and killing all their people ? If so then you are being consistent.

Click to expand...

In the nineties rwanda was horrific genocide, and the U.S. did not intervene..

In the nineties rwanda was horrific genocide, and the U.S. did not intervene..

Click to expand...

Understood, I never said we intervene every time; would you be OK with "Rwanda"s happening more often and us just standing by watching ? How about a Hitler type situation ? Are you OK with not having the capability to stop it ? If so then you're right, we could cut the military a solid 50%, if not more, to defend just our shores.

That's a strange thing to say given that 9/11 happened under Bush but was planned under Clinton. 9/11 didn't happen because OBL didn't like Bush's policies and his alone.

Click to expand...

9/11 was a horrible thing that was certainly in the initial phases of planning under Clinton and under way by the time Bush took office, but no doubt the last few months of planning and actual implementation had to be the most critical.

Neither man was able to recognize the plot and stop it. That's unfortunate. But, it wasn't a war. It was a single act of terrorism. For the last 6 years, we should have been beefing up our intelligence and special operations abilities, not our military. As I've said before, we have no more chance of wiping out terrorism than we have of wiping out murderers. This is not a military issue. It's a police issue, and might require targeted military support.

We are no safer now than we were before, except in the sense that Al Qaeda is not bothering to come over here, when the can far more easily kill us over there. That's a pyrrhic victory.

BelichickFan said:

Just admit that you don't give a crap about non Americans (as I admit) and I'm good with you being consistent. Otherwise I guess we need to be able to defend all those foreigners you care so much about.

Click to expand...

I don't think our efforts in the Middle East are saving lives. If I thought that, I would support the war at this point. I think that the ME will only have a chance to heal and normalize once we're out of they're. We're the raison d'etre for the problems in Iraq. "Hate America, Join Al Qaeda" has a better ring for those who have lost loved ones than "Hate your neighbor, Join Al Qaeda."